coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Świnoujście.
5.  On 1 December 1992 the applicant brought an action against his former employer before the Szczecin Regional Court for payment of 88,674 zlotys in compensation for refraining from undertaking any professional activity in competition to that of his former employer. His contract of employment provided for such compensation for a period of six months after the termination of his contract of employment (“the competition clause”).
6.  Hearings were held on 3 March 1993, 27 August 1993 and 26 October 1993. On 26 October 1993 the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action. The applicant appealed to the Poznań Court of Appeal.
7.  On 24 March 1994 an appeal hearing was held.
8.  On 5 May 1994 the Poznań Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case.
9.  On 20 December 1994 a hearing was held during which the court examined witnesses.
10.  On 7 February 1995, 4 April 1995 and 16 May 1995 further hearings were held. On 16 May 1995 the court decided to have witnesses examined by other courts for reasons of economy of proceedings. It sent its request to these courts on 27 July 1995. On 12 October 1995 and 10 December 1995 the requested courts examined witnesses.
11.  On 6 February 1996, 18 March 1996 and 19 November 1996 further hearings were held.
12.  On 29 January 1997 the Szczecin Regional Court gave a judgment in which it allowed the applicant’s claim in part – it awarded him 44,621 zlotys. Both parties appealed.
13.  On 31 July 1997 the Poznań Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s action in its entirety. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal.
14.  On 24 February 1998 the Supreme Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case.
15.  On 22 October 1998 a hearing was held before the Poznań Court of Appeal during which the parties agreed to enter into negotiations.
16.  On 28 January 1999 a judicial settlement was concluded and the proceedings were discontinued. According to the settlement, the applicant obtained 61,000 zlotys.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and died on 14 November 2004. By letter of 4 April 2005, the applicant's widow informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application.
5.  In May 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kirovskyy District Court against his former employer, the Makeyivugillya State Mining Company (ДП «Макеїввугілля»), for salary arrears and compensation for moral damage. On 15 August 2003 the court awarded the applicant 13,890.79[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) (Рішення Кіровського районного суду м. Макеївки).
6.  On 25 September 2003 the Tsentralno-miskyy District Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Центрально-міського районного управління юстиції м.Макеївки) initiated the enforcement proceedings. On 21 October 2003 the applicant received UAH 574.75. Later the applicant received UAH 2,666. The rest of the sum due to the applicant remains unpaid.
7.  In October 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralno-miskyy District Court of the town of Makeyivka against the Tsentralno-miskyy Bailiffs' Service for failure to enforce the court judgment in his favour. On 2 December 2003 the court found for the applicant and ordered the Bailiffs' Service to seize the debtor's property. By letters of 12 March and 5 May 2004, the Donetsk Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that in January-February 2004 some of the debtor's property and accounts had been seized, and that the court judgment in the applicant's favour would be enforced gradually in accordance with his place in the list of creditors.
8.  In August 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kirovskyy District Court against the Makeyivugillya State Mining Company claiming compensation for the loss of earnings because of the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 28 October 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 20 December 2004 the court provided the applicant with a time-limit until 9 January 2005 to lodge an appeal in compliance with procedural formalities previewed by law. On 14 July 2005 the Kirovskyy District Court returned the appeal lodged by the applicant's widow. She appealed against this decision. The parties did not submit any further information about these proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Dniprodzerzhynsk. At the material time he was an employee of the CJSC “Dniprovsky Zavod Mineralnykh Dobryv” (“the Company,” ЗАТ “Дніпровський завод мінеральних добрив”), in which the State owned 40% of the share capital. The company was therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.”
5.  On 10 April 2003 the Bagliysky District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk (Баглійський районний суд м. Дніпродзержинська) ordered the Company to pay the applicant UAH 3,047.03[1] in salary arrears and various payments. This judgment was not appealed against and became final.
6.  On 14 April 2003 the Bagliysky District Bailiffs’ Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Баглійського районного управління юстиції в м. Дніпродзержинську) instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment.
7.  On 21 October 2003 the Bailiffs informed the applicant that the delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 10 April 2003 was due to the large number of enforcement proceedings taken against the Company, the holding of its property in a tax lien and a statutory moratorium on the forced sale of State property.
8.  On 7 April 2004 the Dnipropetrovsk Commercial Court (Господарський суд Дніпропетровської області) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and introduced a moratorium on payment of its debts.
9.  On 30 May 2005 the applicant received the award due to him less UAH 200[2]. This part of the judgment remains unenforced to the present day.
4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Ivanivka, the Lugansk region. He is a former employee of the Ivanivka Machine-Building Plant (“the Plant,” Іванівський верстатозавод). 99.11% of the Plant’s shares are owned by the State.
5.  On 30 October 2000 the Plant’s labour disputes commission (“the Commission,” комісія з трудових спорів Іванівського верстатозаводу) ordered the Plant to pay the applicant UAH 2,127.24[1] in salary arrears. This decision became final and was transferred to the Antratsit Bailiffs’ Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Антрацитівського районного управління юстиції) for enforcement.
6.  On 2 November 2001 and 21 January 2004 the Antratsit Court (Антрацитівський районний суд Луганської області) additionally ordered the Plant to pay the applicant UAH 970.13[2] and UAH 535[3] respectively in various payments. These judgments became final and the enforcement writs were transferred to the Bailiffs for enforcement.
7.  On 1 February 2005 the Bailiffs informed the applicant that the delays in collection of the awards due to him were due to the holding of the Plant’s property in a tax lien, a statutory moratorium on the forced sale of State property and the pending bankruptcy proceedings against the Plant.
8.  The decision of 30 October 2000 and the judgments of 2 November 2001 and 21 January 2004 remain unenforced.
II.
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the town of Novogrodivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.
5.  On 21 April and 13 June 2003 the Novogrodivskyy Town Court ordered the applicant's former employer, the Novogrodivska Mining Company No. 1/3 (Шахта 1/3 „Новогродівська”) – a State-owned enterprise - to pay the applicant 5,010.72[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) and UAH 4,211.75[2] in salary arrears and other payments (Рішення Новогродівського міського суду Донецької області).
6.  On 5 May and 21 July 2003, respectively, the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новогродівського міського управління юстиції) instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgments.
7.  The Novogrodivska Mining Company was reorganised and became a structural subdivision of the Selidovvugillya Mining Company. As the latter thereby became the debtor, the enforcement proceedings were transferred to the Selidivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Селидівського міського управління юстиції).
8.  In February 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court against the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service, seeking compensation for failure to enforce the judgments in her favour. On 11 March 2004 the court rejected her claim, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs' Service. It held that the judgment could not be enforced due to, inter alia, the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001. On 5 July 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first instance court. The applicant appealed against these judgments in cassation. The parties did not submit any further information about these proceedings.
9.  In September 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Selidivskyy Town Court against the Selidivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service, seeking compensation for failure to enforce the judgments in her favour. On 14 October 2004 the court rejected her claim, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs' Service. On 14 February 2005 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first instance court. The applicant appealed against these judgments in cassation. The parties did not submit any further information about these proceedings.
10.  On 14 September 2004 the applicant received UAH 3,996.65[3]. According to her, the rest of the amounts awarded remains unpaid.
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in the town of Krasnyy Luch, Lugansk region, Ukraine.
5.  In 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Krasnolutskyy Town Court against her former employer, the Knyagyninska State Mining Company (Шахта «Княгинінська» ДХК «Донбасантрацит»), for salary arrears and compensation for moral damage. On 29 October 2003 the court awarded the applicant 2,479.19[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) (Рішення Краснолуцького міського суду Луганської області).
6.  In December 2003 the Krasnolutskyy Town Bailiffs' Service (Міський відділ Державної виконавчої служби Красно луцького міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings.
7.  By letter of 2 June 2004, the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the debtor's accounts had been seized but that it was impossible to deal in the debtor's property because the debtor was a State enterprise.
8.  On 25 March 2005 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor enterprise.
9.  The applicant received UAH 1,386.34; according to the applicant, the rest of the debt remains unpaid.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in the town of Bat-Yam, Israel.
5.  On 26 June 2001 the Commercial Court of the Kherson Region commenced bankruptcy proceedings against the State Enterprise “Khersonskyy Sudnobudivelnyy Zavod”, the applicant's former employer. According to the Government, these proceedings are still pending.
6.  On 4 December 2002 the Komsomolskyy District Court of Kherson ordered that company to pay the applicant UAH 9,879[1] in salary arrears.
7.  On 16 January 2003 the Komsomolskyy District Bailiffs' Service of Kherson instituted enforcement proceedings.
8.  By letter of 11 September 2003, the Kherson Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the judgment in his favour had not been executed due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor company and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to it had been blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001.
9.  On 6 October 2004 the State Property Fund sold 83.61% of the debtor's share capital to a private company. Under the terms of the sales contract, the latter undertook to pay all the salary-related debts of the debtor company.
10.  On 22 June 2005 the full amount of the judgment debt was transferred to the deposit account of the Bailiffs' Service. The applicant was invited to submit his bank account details to the Bailiffs' Service. On an unspecified date the applicant received the full amount of the debt.
6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Frankenthal.
7.  On 28 May 1991 the applicant's husband instituted proceedings with the Frankenthal District Court, sitting as a court competent in family matters, with a view to obtain the spouses' divorce.
8.  On 21 February 1992 the Frankenthal District Court pronounced the spouses' divorce. It ordered the applicant's former husband to pay alimony to their son. Having regard to a marriage contract in which both parties had agreed to manage their property separately and to waive alimony in case of a divorce, it found that the applicant was not entitled to any alimony payments. Contrary to the applicant's allegations, it considered the marriage contract to be compatible with German law, finding that the applicant's pregnancy at the time that it was concluded did not place her at an excessive disadvantage that would automatically make the contract null and void.
9.  On 12 November 1992 the Palatinate Court of Appeal, following the applicant's appeal, amended the District Court's decision. It obliged her former husband to pay her a monthly alimony of DEM 300 (approximately EUR 153), finding that this was necessary to ensure the upbringing of their child and the applicant's other child from an earlier marriage, who is severely disabled. The Court of Appeal also increased the monthly alimony to be paid to the spouses' son. Referring to the reasoning in the District Court's decision, it also found that the marriage contract was compatible with German law.
10.  On 2 December 1992 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court.
11.  On 29 March 2001 the Federal Constitutional Court found that the decision of the Court of Appeal violated the applicant's rights under the German Basic Law. It found that when determining the validity of the marriage contract, the Court of Appeal had not taken into account that the applicant's pregnancy, in addition to the strain of caring for a handicapped child, placed her at an obvious disadvantage towards her former husband when concluding the marriage contract. The matter was thus remitted to the Court of Appeal.
12.  On 8 November 2001 the proceedings before the Court of Appeal were discontinued following the engagement of the applicant's former husband, in the context of a court settlement, to pay monthly alimony to the applicant, as well as a lump sum with respect to the past.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the village of Sobolivka, the Zhytomyr Region.
5.  By three judgments of 18 February, 5 March and 20 May 2003 the Dzerzhynsk Town Court ordered the Sobolivka Village Council to pay the applicant UAH 4,097.01[1] in salary arrears and other payments.
6.  The Romaniv Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the first judgment on 3 March 2003 and in respect of two other judgments on 26 June 2003.
7.  On 14 June 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine had not foreseen the order of payment of such judgment debts.
8.  In January 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the same court against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgments in her favour. On 5 February 2004 the court rejected her claim, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs’ Service. On 8 April 2004 the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance court. The courts held that the judgments could not be enforced as there were no procedure regulating the seizure of funds from the accounts of the State Treasury. The applicant’s appeal in cassation is still pending before the Supreme Court of Ukraine.
9.  On an unspecified date the applicant received UAH 364.92[2]. The judgments remain to a large extent unenforced (UAH 3,732.09[3]).
II.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and resides in the town of Zhovti Vody, Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine.
5.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zhovtovodskyy Town Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region against his employer, a State-owned company, the Zhovti Vody Construction Department (Жовтоводське управління будівництва), in order to receive salary arrears and other payments.
6.  On 21 December 2000 the court found for the applicant and awarded him 5,329.30[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) (Рішення Жовтоводського міського суду).
7.  On 19 January 2001 the Zhovti Vody Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Жовтоводського міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings.
8.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted new proceedings in the same court against the same enterprise for further payments and compensation.
9.  On 20 February 2002 the court found for the applicant and awarded him UAH 2,093.49[2].
10.  The applicant received UAH 650, but, according to him, the rest of the awards remain unpaid.
11.  By letter of 4 April 2003, the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been stayed because of the bankruptcy proceedings initiated against the debtor by a decision of 27 December 2001 of the Commercial Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region. The Bailiffs' Service also stated that, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced.
12.  By the decree of 5 October 2004 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine liquidated the debtor company.
4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Nova Kakhovka, the Kherson region. He is a former employee of the State-controlled OJSC “Pivdenelektromash” (“the Company,” ВАТ “Південелектромаш”).
5.  The background facts for the case are described in the case of Anatskiy v. Ukraine (no. 10558/03, §§ 5-8, 13 December 2005).
6.  On 7 February 2001 the Nova Kakhovka Court (Новокаховський міський суд Херсонської області) ordered the Company to pay the applicant UAH 3,009[1] in salary arrears. This judgment became final.
7.  According to the Government, the applicant never submitted the enforcement writ in respect of this judgment for enforcement.
8.  The applicant presented a copy of the letter of the Nova Kakhovka Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новокаховського міського управління юстиції) of 6 May 2005 advising him that the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 7 February 2001 had been instituted on 26 February 2002.
9.  Additionally, the applicant presented a copy of the Bailiffs' decision of 1 July 2002, by which they returned him the enforcement writ in respect of the above judgment unenforced. In particular, the Bailiffs referred to the impossibility of the enforcement in view of the debtor's lack of funds, the pending bankruptcy proceedings against it and the holding of its assets in a tax lien.
10.  The judgment of 7 February 2001 remains unenforced to the present day.
11.  On 29 December 2002 the Nova Kakhovka Court ordered the Company to pay the applicant UAH 3,359[2] in salary arrears. This judgment became final and on 13 February 2003 the Bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings in its respect.
12.  The judgment of 29 December 2002 remains unenforced to the present day.
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and resides in the town of Zhovti Vody, Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine.
5.  On an unspecified date the applicant's late wife instituted proceedings in the Zhovtovodskyy Town Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region against her employer, a State-owned company, the Zhovti Vody Construction Department (Жовтоводське управління будівництва), in order to receive salary arrears and other payments.
6.  On 19 March 2001 the court found for the applicant's wife and awarded her 4,346.81[1] Ukrainian hryvnas (“UAH”) (Рішення Жовтоводського міського суду).
7.  On 28 March 2001 the Zhovti Vody Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Жовтоводського міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings. On 28 September 2001 the applicant's wife received UAH 300. On 12 April 2002 she received a further UAH 350. The rest of the awarded amount remains unpaid.
8.  On 1 May 2002 the applicant's wife died.
9.  On 22 December 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv against the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine, claiming the salary arrears due to his late wife and compensation for moral damage.
10.  On 1 February 2003 the applicant was recognised as an heir of his late wife.
11.  On 11 August 2003 the court found against the applicant on the ground that the company was an independent legal entity for which debts the Ministry was not responsible.
12.  By letter of 31 December 2003, the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been stayed because of the bankruptcy proceedings initiated against the debtor by a decision of 27 December 2001 of the Commercial Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region. The Bailiffs' Service also stated that, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced.
13.  By the decree of 5 October 2004 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine liquidated the debtor company.
4.  The applicants live in Miusinsk, the Lugansk region. The first, the third, the fourth, the fifth and the sixth applicants were born in 1943, 1936, 1940, 1950 and 1934 respectively. The second applicant did not specify the date of his birth.
5.  On 29 November 2000 the Krasnyy Luch Court (Краснолуцький міський суд Луганської області) awarded the first applicant UAH 286.68[1] against the State Mining Company Novopavlivska (“the Mine,” ДВАТ шахта „Новопавлівська”) in compensation for a delayed salary payment.
6.  Additionally, between 2001 and 2004 (see annexed table) each of the applicants obtained a judgment of the Krasnyy Luch Court ordering the Mine to provide him with a certain quantity of coal.
7.  All of the judgments given in favour of the applicants became final and the enforcement writs in their respect were transferred to the Krasnyy Luch Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ державної виконавчої служби Краснолуцького міського управління юстиції) for enforcement.
8.  On 8 February 2005 the Bailiffs informed the applicants that pursuant to a decision of the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court (Господарський суд Луганської області) of 14 November 2002, the Mine had been declared bankrupt and subjected to a financial rehabilitation procedure that was to continue until 31 December 2007. The Bailiffs further noted that the Mine was not mining any coal, due to the lack of financing from the State.
9.  The judgment of 29 November 2000 awarding compensation to the first applicant was enforced on 12 December 2005. The other judgments awarding the applicants coal have not been enforced.